Rosemary C Polomano1, Kevin T Galloway2, Michael L Kent3, Hisani Brandon-Edwards2, Kyung Nancy Kwon2, Carlos Morales2, Chester 'Trip' Buckenmaier4. 1. *Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Defense & Veterans Center for Integrative Pain Management (DVCIPM), Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., Rockville, Maryland. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Defense & Veterans Center for Integrative Pain Management (DVCIPM), Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., Rockville, Maryland Department of Military Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA cbuckenmaier@dvcipm.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS 2.0) is a pain assessment tool that utilizes a numerical rating scale enhanced by functional word descriptors, color coding, and pictorial facial expressions matched to pain levels. Four supplemental questions measure how much pain interferes with usual activity and sleep, and affects mood and contributes to stress. METHODS: Psychometric testing was performed on a revised DVPRS 2.0 using data from 307 active duty service members and Veterans experiencing acute or chronic pain. A new set of facial representations designating pain levels was tested. RESULTS: Results demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.871) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.637 to r = 0.774) for the five items. Excellent interrater agreement was established for correctly ordering faces depicting pain levels and aligning them on the pain intensity scale (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W = 0.95 and 0.959, respectively). Construct validity was supported by an exploratory principal component factor analysis and known groups validity testing. Most participants, 70.9%, felt that the DVPRS was superior to other pain rating scales. CONSCLUSION: The DVPRS 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument that provides standard language and metrics to communicate pain and related outcomes. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. 2016. This work is written by US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
OBJECTIVE: The Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS 2.0) is a pain assessment tool that utilizes a numerical rating scale enhanced by functional word descriptors, color coding, and pictorial facial expressions matched to pain levels. Four supplemental questions measure how much pain interferes with usual activity and sleep, and affects mood and contributes to stress. METHODS: Psychometric testing was performed on a revised DVPRS 2.0 using data from 307 active duty service members and Veterans experiencing acute or chronic pain. A new set of facial representations designating pain levels was tested. RESULTS: Results demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.871) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.637 to r = 0.774) for the five items. Excellent interrater agreement was established for correctly ordering faces depicting pain levels and aligning them on the pain intensity scale (Kendall's coefficient of concordance, W = 0.95 and 0.959, respectively). Construct validity was supported by an exploratory principal component factor analysis and known groups validity testing. Most participants, 70.9%, felt that the DVPRS was superior to other pain rating scales. CONSCLUSION: The DVPRS 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument that provides standard language and metrics to communicate pain and related outcomes. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. 2016. This work is written by US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Entities:
Keywords:
DVPRS; Military Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain Scales; Validation Study
Authors: Patrick Tighe; François Modave; MaryBeth Horodyski; Matthew Marsik; G Lipori; Roger Fillingim; Hui Hu; Jennifer Hagen Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Shawn Farrokhi; Elizabeth Russell Esposito; Danielle McPherson; Brittney Mazzone; Rachel Condon; Charity G Patterson; Michael Schneider; Carol M Greco; Anthony Delitto; M Jason Highsmith; Brad D Hendershot; Jason Maikos; Christopher L Dearth Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Julie M Fritz; Daniel I Rhon; Deydre S Teyhen; Jacob Kean; Megan E Vanneman; Eric L Garland; Ian E Lee; Richard E Thorp; Tom H Greene Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Richard L Purcell; Kyle E Nappo; Daniel W Griffin; Michael McCabe; Terrence Anderson; Michael Kent Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Jeffrey L Goodie; Kathryn E Kanzler; Cindy A McGeary; Abby E Blankenship; Stacey Young-McCaughan; Alan L Peterson; Briana A Cobos; Anne C Dobmeyer; Christopher L Hunter; John Blue Star; Aditya Bhagwat; Donald D McGeary Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Hongjin Li; Diane M Flynn; Krista B Highland; Patricia K Barr; Dale J Langford; Ardith Z Doorenbos Journal: Pain Med Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Cameron R Smith; Raheleh Baharloo; Paul Nickerson; Margaret Wallace; Baiming Zou; Roger B Fillingim; Paul Crispen; Hari Parvataneni; Chancellor Gray; Hernan Prieto; Tiago Machuca; Steven Hughes; Gregory Murad; Parisa Rashidi; Patrick J Tighe Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 3.931